VMI77 wrote:speedsix wrote:...I don't see any difference between smelling the unmistakable odor of burning pot and seeing it through a window...I believe they were right in going in before it could go away...especially while in pursuit of a drug suspect...a lot of reasonable cause there...
You need to look at the ruling and not just the particular case where an odor was the pretext for entry. There is nothing reasonable about this ruling. Here's how it's described in the LA Times (
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1161.story):
"The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant."
What sounds "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Is there ANY sound that can't be used as a pretext to "suggest" evidence is being destroyed? Your TV (turned on to cover up the sound of evidence being destroyed). Your toilet flushing (flushing evidence down the toilet). Your stereo on (hiding the "sounds of destroying evidence"). Sound of someone walking (someone destroying evidence). Baby crying (parents must be destroying evidence instead of attending to child). You yell, "someone's at the door" (signal to another person in the house to destroy evidence).
This ruling gives the police carte blanche to kick your door down and guts the probable cause standard.
I agree you need to read the ruling and not the LA Times spin on it, because it (ruling) does not agree with the Times' statement. Exigent circumstances are still required...Chasing a suspect, smell of marijuana,
and sounds suggesting destruction of evidence, etc. And they even suggest that the lower court can re-evaluate whether the exigent circumstances were sufficient to allow the warrantless entry.
